Napoleon was Corsican, not French, so that doesn´t count
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Napoleon was Corsican, not French, so that doesn´t count
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
Sure. And Hitler was Austrian, Stalin was Georgian etc.
EDIT: That site is heavily biased...
EDIT2: And BTW, technically, the Germans lost BOTH World Wars, despite their tactical victories...
EDIT: That site is heavily biased...
EDIT2: And BTW, technically, the Germans lost BOTH World Wars, despite their tactical victories...
Eh...name me one war France has won by itself whilst under the command of a Frenchman.
But seriously, France has many great things like art (excluding the so called modern art, which is pure nonsense) and wines but they've simply never been good at war.
French wars: in the last 200 some years. War of the First Coalition: French Victory War of the Second Coalition: French Victory War of the Third Coalition: An incredible French victory War of the Fourth Coalition: French Victory. War of the Fifth Coalition: French Victory. War of the Sixth Coalition: French Defeat? or was it? because then there followed the war of the Seventh Coalition: French defeat. For those keeping track France fought the entirety of Europe for almost 20 years while undergoing revolution and had a 5 for 7 record. Crimean War: French and allied Victory. Sino French War: French Victory. WW1: French Victory with help.
Napoleon was French. Corsica became part of France the same year he was born and never stopped being part of France afterwards. The Corsica is not France nonsense is just a way for small minded people to maintain their poor opinion of French military exploits in the face of his undeniable brilliance. Most of Germany's ww1 generals were Prussian, but no one says that makes them somehow 'not German.' If we're going to call Napoleon 'Corsican' instead of French, then we get to say that Mannerheim was a Russian because he was born before Finnish independence.
The entire reputation of France's lack of martial ability stems from 2 wars. WW2, and the war in Vietnam, suffering reverses in those two wars does not make the French uniquely incapable of fighting. Plenty of countries were occupied during WW2 and no colonial war was ever won by anyone following that conflict.
Last edited:
Hahah. You know what I meant though.
In the first one the Entente was on the verge of collapse. American aid came just on the most critical moment and saved France.
Also the German military was not defeated by the time the war ended. Germany collapsed from within.
Napoleon wasn't French, he was Corsican. Yes, I know France had recently acquired Corsica, but they were a far different people than actual Frenchmen. Saying Napoleon was French is like saying Stalin was a Russian.
EDIT: Emu'd by Inner Circle and Cybvep.
Personally I'd say Austrians are just Southern Germans, but this is probably something that most Austrians and many Germans disagree with for political reasons.
Biased, yes, but most if not all of those wars and their conclusions are facts.
WWII was in many ways a series of smaller wars and the Germans won most of them and could've quite easily won all of them if Hitler had let the professionals do their job.
Porkman, which part of "name me one war France has won by itself whilst under the command of a Frenchman" do you fail to understand?
Last edited:
It's arguable, really...
They saw no chance of winning. They lost. That counts.
Then German victories during 1939-40 can't be attributed to them, because they were led by an Austrian. It's a strange argument that makes no sense if you think about it.
And again, all-powerful Germans lost BOTH World Wars, so reputation isn't always synonymous with the results.
Theres history before (and after) ww1 and ww2
I dont find it funny.......
There are 2 unbreakable win for France, Victory made by France led by French: (at least 1)
THE CONQUEST OF ENGLAND by Guillaume The Conqueror
If that isnt a huge win i dunno what this is. Bt if you wanna use the same arguments used against Napoleon, saying Guillaume (or william) was Norman and not French, then see the other below.
THE FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY WAR by the Revolutionaries
After the Revolution and the beheading of the king whole Europe declared war on France, fearing a similar revolution at home. AND WE DEFEATED THEM! Napoleon came after the battles were won and won even more.
This has gone far enough OT, please make a mod intervene.
Last edited:
By 1917 military-wise the Entente was very FUBAR. They weren't doing too well with the economy either. Only the US entry saved them from certain collapse. Kaiser Wilhelm II even declared victory in December 1916.
After the US entry had made a huge impact on the war and turned it into a stalemate which Germany would eventually lose thanks to the situation of their economy by 1918.
Read my edit in the earlier post. Also, your argument makes little sense; Napoleon, a Corsican, made his brilliant victories happen by leading on the battlefield. Hitler didn't personally lead his battles, German generals did.
Reputation never comes without a reason behind it.
EDIT: Fair enough, this should be continued as PMs only.
Ukraine gain independence in early 30s (in real time it existed for a short period in 1918 or 1919 but then Ukraine was consumed by Soviet Russia and Poland). So Ukaine may have two choices: become a democratic country and join Allies in 1939 or became nationalist and so it would be an ally for Germany.
Another a-history suggestion: Poland make good preparation for the war with Germany and as a result it can not only defend itself agains Axis, but even defeat Germany. I mean what would happen if Poles have better armies and more modern tactic?
What about USA entering war in 1939 or 1940, lets say before the fall of France? Can american army save Paris?
Another alternative if Germans occupied British Isles, I think there should be an event for the liberation of United Kingdom, for exmaple if US army land on the shores of the British Isles. Or another possibility if Red Army liberate Britain, but in this case Moscow may create communist Union of Britain.
I finnaly what about Turkey, Sweden or Spain (Nationalist or republican)? These countries were neutral, but what might happen if one of the joined Axis, Allies or comintern? Can Sweden become salvation for Norway in it's dark hour or its damanation? Can Turkey become once again mighty Ottoman Empire in the Axis block or make an attempt to save Yugoslavia and Greece from Italo-German invasion?
Another a-history suggestion: Poland make good preparation for the war with Germany and as a result it can not only defend itself agains Axis, but even defeat Germany. I mean what would happen if Poles have better armies and more modern tactic?
What about USA entering war in 1939 or 1940, lets say before the fall of France? Can american army save Paris?
Another alternative if Germans occupied British Isles, I think there should be an event for the liberation of United Kingdom, for exmaple if US army land on the shores of the British Isles. Or another possibility if Red Army liberate Britain, but in this case Moscow may create communist Union of Britain.
I finnaly what about Turkey, Sweden or Spain (Nationalist or republican)? These countries were neutral, but what might happen if one of the joined Axis, Allies or comintern? Can Sweden become salvation for Norway in it's dark hour or its damanation? Can Turkey become once again mighty Ottoman Empire in the Axis block or make an attempt to save Yugoslavia and Greece from Italo-German invasion?
Last edited:
An interesting option would be to unite Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania,
as was planned in ~1946-1947, quote from wiki:
"The only communist neighbor of the People's Republic of Albania was Yugoslavia, and in the immediate post-war period the country was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. Neighboring Bulgaria was under increasing Yugoslav influence as well, and talks began to negotiate the inclusion of Albania and Bulgaria into Yugoslavia. The major point of contention was that Yugoslavia wanted to absorb the two as federal republics. Albania was in no position to object, but the Bulgarian view was that the new federation would see Bulgaria and Yugoslavia as a whole uniting on equal terms. As these negotiations began, Yugoslav representatives Edvard Kardelj and Milovan Đilas were summoned to Moscow alongside a Bulgarian delegation, where Stalin and Vyacheslav Molotov attempted to brow-beat them both into accepting Soviet control over the merge between the countries, and generally tried to force them into subordination.[8] The Soviets did not express a specific view on the issue of Yugoslav-Bulgarian unification, but wanted to ensure both parties first approved every decision with Moscow. The Bulgarians did not object, but the Yugoslav delegation withdrew from the Moscow meeting. Recognizing the level of Bulgarian subordination to Moscow, Yugoslavia withdrew from the unification talks, and shelved plans for the annexation of Albania in anticipation of a confrontation with the Soviet Union.[8]"
with chance to consider adding also Greece to this "Balkan Communist/Socialist Federation", if communists win in greek civil war.
as was planned in ~1946-1947, quote from wiki:
"The only communist neighbor of the People's Republic of Albania was Yugoslavia, and in the immediate post-war period the country was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. Neighboring Bulgaria was under increasing Yugoslav influence as well, and talks began to negotiate the inclusion of Albania and Bulgaria into Yugoslavia. The major point of contention was that Yugoslavia wanted to absorb the two as federal republics. Albania was in no position to object, but the Bulgarian view was that the new federation would see Bulgaria and Yugoslavia as a whole uniting on equal terms. As these negotiations began, Yugoslav representatives Edvard Kardelj and Milovan Đilas were summoned to Moscow alongside a Bulgarian delegation, where Stalin and Vyacheslav Molotov attempted to brow-beat them both into accepting Soviet control over the merge between the countries, and generally tried to force them into subordination.[8] The Soviets did not express a specific view on the issue of Yugoslav-Bulgarian unification, but wanted to ensure both parties first approved every decision with Moscow. The Bulgarians did not object, but the Yugoslav delegation withdrew from the Moscow meeting. Recognizing the level of Bulgarian subordination to Moscow, Yugoslavia withdrew from the unification talks, and shelved plans for the annexation of Albania in anticipation of a confrontation with the Soviet Union.[8]"
with chance to consider adding also Greece to this "Balkan Communist/Socialist Federation", if communists win in greek civil war
.
I've got idea for an alternate Operation Barbarossa, Germany sends aid to Italy much earlier in Africa and by December 1940 captures Alexandria, German success in North Africa encourages Turkey to join the Axis, and invade Syria and help rout the British from Palestine and Iraq, Re-creating the Ottoman Empire. So when invasion of Soviet Union begins, The Ottomans reinforced by german tanks, make an attempt to retake the caucasus and regain lost glory.
This scenario would include Turkey(Ottoman Empire) and Soviet Union, with some "Germany sends reinforcements" events for Turkey maybe. And the goal would be to capture Baku, Stalingrad and Sevastapol.
This scenario would include Turkey(Ottoman Empire) and Soviet Union, with some "Germany sends reinforcements" events for Turkey maybe. And the goal would be to capture Baku, Stalingrad and Sevastapol.
Gholiath robot tanks. it would be nice if they can build just in texnology adding organization or units attack by 1%
I don't know if you imported the basic event chain from the E3 Mod, but there were plans to include an operation plan by the Romanian Military, by which, at the end of Barbarossa, the returning Romanian Army would attack Hungary for a push towards Budapest to force Hungary to relinquish the territories taken in 1940. The failure of Barbarossa meant that it never happened. The event chain could trigger once certain Soviet cities are taken, prompting the Romanian army to return home. Once the Soviet Union capitulates, the player is given the option to initiate the attack or abstain. At that point, Romania and Hungary exit the Axis and go to war. The operation could be named Operation Michael the Brave, after the guy that first united the principalities (briefly in 1600). Germany then has a 4 choice option. The most likely one being not to intervene (the Vienna Dictate was mostly a means to coarse both nations into supporting German operations deep into the war in hopes of gaining favor), the 2nd most likely being an attempt to negotiate a compromise, where Hungary gets to keep Oradea and Miercurea Ciuc from the territory taken in 1940, while the other two (5% each) are about sending ultimatums to one or the other. If Hungary wins it may choose to keep the border, gain Turda and Arad, or gain all of Transylvania (Arad, Turda, Sibiu, Alba Iulia, Timisoara, Resita, Petrovgrad*). If Romania wins it can choose to take back the lost territory, or take that and Bekescsaba, or that and the rest of Crișana and Maramureș (Debrecen, Bekescsaba, Uzhorod, Chust). Feel free to be creative with reactions to a German Ultimatum.
*Petrovgrad, because Romania might choose to take administration the province. Hitler offered it during the invasion of Yugoslavia, but Antonescu turned down the proposal, which makes for another proposal.
*Petrovgrad, because Romania might choose to take administration the province. Hitler offered it during the invasion of Yugoslavia, but Antonescu turned down the proposal, which makes for another proposal.
I like the one above.
Also, a paternal autocrat British Empire emerging before WW2 would be nice.
Also, a paternal autocrat British Empire emerging before WW2 would be nice.